Doe 1 et al v. McAleenan et al, No. 5:2018cv02349 - Document 420 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 407 PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/21/2020.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2020)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 JANE DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 JENNIFER B. HIGGINS, et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [Re: ECF 407] 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal portions of their 14 opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and associated exhibits. ECF 407. Plaintiffs filed 15 their request because portions of the opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss were designated 16 by Defendants as “Highly Confidential/Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or “Confidential” pursuant to the 17 amended protective order (ECF 256) or which Plaintiffs understand Defendants would wish to 18 keep under seal based on such designations. ECF 407, at 1. Defendants filed declarations in 19 regarding the filing these portions under seal. ECF 412. For the reasons stated below, the motion is 20 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 21 22 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 24 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 25 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 26 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the 27 merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for 28 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 1 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 2 1097. Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of United States District Court Northern District of California 3 4 sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Under Civil 5 Local Rule 79-6(d), the submitting party must attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to 6 seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that 7 is sought to be sealed.” In addition, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file 8 a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 9 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 10 as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. 11 Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated 12 confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing 13 adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). 14 The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has 15 been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 16 Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of 17 the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a 18 responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the 19 Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later 20 than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 This sealing motion concerns portions of Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion to 23 dismiss and exhibits filed in support of their briefing. The Court finds that those documents are 24 more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, and therefore that the compelling reasons 25 standard applies. 26 27 The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for sealing the portions of the opposition to the motion to dismiss and associated exhibits as set forth below. 28 2 1 ECF Document to be 2 No. 3 407-4 Sealed Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 407-6 Meyer Decl., Ex. 3 4 5 6 7 8 Result Reasoning GRANTED as to portions of the document highlighted at: 1:17-19 7:7 10:22-23, 24-25, 27 13:14-16 17:5 18:12, 25-26, 27-28 19:1, 7, 14, 27-28 This document contains descriptions of an FBI technique designated law enforcement sensitive. Decl. of Gabriel K. Poling (“Poling Decl.”) ¶ 12, ECF 412-1. If disclosed, this information would provide terrorists, their associates, and other criminals with a roadmap of a procedure by which law enforcement evaluates, analyzes, and shares information concerning terrorists and criminals. Id. Disclosure could cause serious harm because individuals may alter their behavior to avoid detection, which would compromise ongoing and future national security investigations. Id. Moreover, this document contains information that would reduce the efficacy of screening processes, methods, and techniques by enabling refugee applicants to adjust their behavior or take precautions to avoid discovery or evidence justifying denial of their applications. Declaration of Joanna Ruppel (“Ruppel Decl.”) ¶ 4, ECF 412-2. Refugee applicants seeking to conceal criminal conduct, national security concerns, or other ineligibility, and/or individuals who seek to do harm to the nation or engage in criminal activities within the United States, may seek to circumvent known processes to avoid detection. Id. ¶ 6. Public release of sensitive details regarding screening procedures and results could enable nefarious actors to more easily exploit the refugee program. Id. Public knowledge of screening processes, methods and techniques will inherently limit the ability of USCIS and its U.S. government partners to identify refugee applicants who pose a national security or law enforcement risk, or are otherwise ineligible. Id. The Court denies this request because Defendants, the designating party, do not 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DENIED as to all the highlighted 3 portions: 1 2 407-8 Meyer Decl., Ex. 4 407-8 Meyer Decl., Ex. 4 40710 Meyer Decl., Ex. 5 40710 Meyer Decl., Ex. 5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 40711 Meyer Decl., Ex. 6 GRANTED as to portions of the document highlighted at: 136:1-21 DENIED as to portions of the document highlighted at: 133:1-4 DENIED as to portions of the document highlighted at: DEF00005921.0001: Penultimate sentence of the first paragraph; These portions of the last sentence of the first paragraph: “However…where applicants” and “provided by the applicant. GRANTED as to portions of the document highlighted at: DEF00005921.0001: Portions of the last sentence of the first paragraph not specifically mentioned above; DEF00005921.0002: all highlighted portions GRANTED in its entirety 28 4 seek to seal any portion of the document. Decl. of Sergio Sarkany (“Sarkany Decl.”) 2, ECF 412 The Court grants this request for the same reasons articulated regarding Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Court denies this request because Defendants, the designating party, do not seek to seal this portion of the document. Sarkany Decl. 2. The Court denies this request because Defendants, the designating party, do not seek to seal this portion of the document. Sarkany Decl. 2. The Court grants this request for the same reasons articulated regarding Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Court grants this request for the same reasons articulated regarding Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ 1 2 40713 Meyer Decl., Ex. 7 40713 Meyer Decl., Ex. 7 40715 Meyer Decl., Ex. 8 40715 Meyer Decl., Ex. 8 40717 Meyer Decl., Ex. 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GRANTED as to portions of the document highlighted at: DEF-00021467; DEF-00021468; DEF-00021469 except for the words “15 months; DEF-00021470; DEF-00021472 DENIED as to portions of the document highlighted at: DEF-00021469: “15 months” Motion to Dismiss. The Court grants this request for the same reasons articulated regarding Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Court denies this request because Defendants, the designating party, do not seek to seal this portion of the document. Sarkany Decl. 2. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 GRANTED as to portions of the document highlighted at: DEF-00021461; DEF-00021462; DEF-00021463, except for “after 15 months;” DEF-00021464 DEF-00021465 DENIED as to portions of the document highlighted at: DEF-00021463: “after 15 months” GRANTED as to portions of the document highlighted at: DEF-00016914.0034 DEF-00016914.0035 DEF-00016914.0036 DEF-00016914.0037 DEF-00016914.0038 27 28 III. ORDER 5 The Court grants this request for the same reasons articulated regarding Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Court denies this request because Defendants, the designating party, do not seek to seal this portion of the document. Sarkany Decl. 2. The Court grants this request for the same reasons articulated regarding Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 1 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 2 Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal portions of their opposition to Defendants’ 3 motion to dismiss. 4 This Order disposes of ECF 407. 5 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: September 21, 2020 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
